I guess there are at least as many coding styles as there are programmers times programming languages. Many of us are conformists, and some of us have our highly personal style, but most of us probably fail at being 100% consistant. Code formatting can probably be considered a slightly religious area, so please feel free to disagree with me :)
So - why bother to put any effort into the formatting anyways? It is not like the compiler care? I mean, apart from the obvious requirement that things should be reasonable readable and not just a jumble of code?
Layout matters. It is significantly easier to pick up code that is consistant in style than wading through spaghetti (or gnocchi) code where the indentation has not been considered much.
I have noticed that my personal style with regards to block formatting definitively is non-conformist. Whenever there is a do, if/then/else, with or without related begin/end, I will probably annoy the heck out of the conformists.
My formatting goals:
• I want clear indication of flow
• I want to separate conditions from actions
• I want room to comment
In the examples below, I will place comments in the individualist examples to give an indication of why I choose to wrap/indent in this way rather than the "global standard"
Let's start with the
do in
with and the
for-loop (I do at times, albeit rarely, confess to the occasional use of
with).
// Conformist
for i := 1 to 5 do Something;
for i := 1 to 5 do begin
Something;
SomethingMore;
end;
with SomeObject do begin
Something;
SomethingMore;
end;
// Individualist
for i := 1 to 5 // For selected range
do Something(i); // get stuff done
for i := 0 to (count - 1) // For every item
do begin
Something(i); // Step 1
SomethingMore(i); // Step 2
end;
with SomeObject // Focusing on this specific item,
do begin // I can add this comment for clarity
Something;
SomethingMore;
end;
The if/then/else statement have too many combinations to even get close to cover them all, so I am only going to do a handful.
// Conformist
if (SomeVariable = Condition) and (SomeOtherExpression) then
PerformSomeRoutine;
if (SomeVariable = Condition) and (SomeOtherExpression) then begin
Code;
MoreCode;
LotsOfCode;
end else OtherCode;
if Condition then DoFirstAlternative else DoSecondAlternative;
if FirstCondition then DoFirstAlternative
else if SecondCondition then DoSecondAlternative
else DoThirdAlternative;
// Individualist
if (SomeVariable = Condition) // I always put the condition alone
then PerformSomeRoutine;
if (SomeVariable = Condition) // Condition X found
and (SomeOtherExpression) // Requirement Y fulfulled
then begin // we can do our stuff
Code;
MoreCode;
LotsOfCode;
end
else OtherCode; // or we ended up with the alternative
if Condition
then DoFirstAlternative // The Condition compelled us to do this
else DoSecondAlternative; // Optionally, we explain the alternative
// Here I find myself doing many different approaches,
// depending on the complexity of the logic, and the number
// of alternatives, but with multiple nested if's, I tend to indent
if FirstCondition
then DoFirstAlternative // We are doing 1 because ...
else if SecondCondition
then DoSecondAlternative // We are doing 2 because ...
else DoThirdAlternative; // Otherwise, We are doing 3
// I might chose this approach if it is a long chain
if FirstCondition
then DoFirstAlternative // We are doing 1 because ...
else if SecondCondition
then DoSecondAlternative // We are doing 2 because ...
else DoThirdAlternative; // Otherwise, We are doing 3
C++/C# and Java people likes to rant about how ugly and verbose our
begin / end's are, and I am sure I could rile myself up over their curly brace enclosures and some of the religion connected to those too - but I am not going to go there. However, there are a few things about our enclosures that may be worth thinking over.
Some like to dangle their
end's at various indentation levels. I prefer to align it with the matching start of the block (
do begin, then begin). Why? It makes it is easier to identify the code path in relation to the condition.
More enclosures doesn't always mean better readability. Here is an example from Indy9(IdTunnelCommon.pas). Kudzu, I love you - but I disagree with your code style in this file :)
(I know I am going to get flamed for this...^^)
procedure TReceiver.SetData(const Value: string);
var
CRC16: Word;
begin
Locker.Enter;
try
try
fsData := Value;
fiMsgLen := Length(fsData);
if fiMsgLen > 0 then begin
Move(fsData[1], (pBuffer + fiPrenosLen)^, fiMsgLen);
fiPrenosLen := fiPrenosLen + fiMsgLen;
if (fiPrenosLen >= HeaderLen) then begin
// copy the header
Move(pBuffer^, Header, HeaderLen);
TypeDetected := True;
// do we have enough data for the entire message
if Header.MsgLen <= fiPrenosLen then begin
MsgLen := Header.MsgLen - HeaderLen;
Move((pBuffer+HeaderLen)^, Msg^, MsgLen);
// Calculate the crc code
CRC16 := CRC16Calculator.HashValue(Msg^);
if CRC16 <> Header.CRC16 then begin
fCRCFailed := True;
end
else begin
fCRCFailed := False;
end;
fbNewMessage := True;
end
else begin
fbNewMessage := False;
end;
end
else begin
TypeDetected := False;
end;
end
else begin
fbNewMessage := False;
TypeDetected := False;
end;
except
raise;
end;
finally
Locker.Leave;
end;
end;
This little nugget very much bear the signs of being written for debugging, so I am not going to hold it to Kudzu for style (much). It includes a few nice examples of code that can be simplified, so it is all good.
So what do I do? • I assume the except block was for debugging, but I'm taking it out. • I might be changing the behaviour by setting two default values up top, but at least there is no doubt about their default value. • But what is with the conditional assignments? Please! BooleanVariable := Expression; !! Don't go "then true else false" on me! • Reworked the comments.
Personally, I think it is more readable like this.
procedure TReceiver.SetData(const Value: string);
var
CRC16: Word;
begin
fbNewMessage := False;
TypeDetected := False;
Locker.Enter;
try
fsData := Value;
fiMsgLen := Length(fsData);
if fiMsgLen > 0
then begin // Data found, Check for Type
Move(fsData[1], (pBuffer + fiPrenosLen)^, fiMsgLen);
fiPrenosLen := fiPrenosLen + fiMsgLen;
TypeDetected := (fiPrenosLen >= HeaderLen);
if TypeDetected
then begin // We have a type, check header for content
Move(pBuffer^, Header, HeaderLen);
fbNewMessage := Header.MsgLen <= fiPrenosLen;
if fbNewMessage
then begin // we have enough data for the entire message
MsgLen := Header.MsgLen - HeaderLen;
Move((pBuffer+HeaderLen)^, Msg^, MsgLen);
CRC16 := CRC16Calculator.HashValue(Msg^); // Calculate the crc code
fCRCFailed := CRC16 <> Header.CRC16; // and check if it was correct
end;
end;
end;
finally
Locker.Leave;
end;
end;
Now, where is that flameproof tin foil dress...
Next: I'll be rambling a little more on effective comments, naming and structure.
Edit - added after Paul's Snippet Rewritten: Delphifreak likes to exit early. He also likes to initialize up top, and I totally agree - that is a good practice. Exit works well in this example where all the conditions are dependant on the previous one. IMO, things get a lot more hairy if there are multiple conditions with alternatives (if/then/else if). For this example, Exits are not bad.
procedure TReceiver.SetData(const Value: string);
var
CRC16: Word;
begin
fbNewMessage := False;
TypeDetected := False;
Locker.Enter;
try
fsData := Value;
fiMsgLen := Length(fsData);
if fiMsgLen = 0
then Exit;
// Data found, Check for Type
Move(fsData[1], (pBuffer + fiPrenosLen)^, fiMsgLen);
fiPrenosLen := fiPrenosLen + fiMsgLen;
TypeDetected := (fiPrenosLen >= HeaderLen);
if not TypeDetected
then Exit;
// We have a type, check header for content
Move(pBuffer^, Header, HeaderLen);
fbNewMessage := Header.MsgLen <= fiPrenosLen;
if not fbNewMessage
then Exit;
// we have enough data for the entire message
MsgLen := Header.MsgLen - HeaderLen;
Move((pBuffer+HeaderLen)^, Msg^, MsgLen);
CRC16 := CRC16Calculator.HashValue(Msg^); // Calculate the crc code
fCRCFailed := CRC16 <> Header.CRC16; // and check if it was correct
finally
Locker.Leave;
end;
end;
